EOR Screening: A laboratory Investigation to compare the performance of WAG and SAG processes for an Indian Field

Presented By Neha Surya B.tech IVth Year RGIPT , Rae Bareli

3/2/2012 SPE 1

Where are resources ? Mature Fields

the

How

will we obtain
Oil

them? Enhanced Recovery(EOR)

3/2/2012

SPE

Water Alternate Gas(WAG) Process

Surfactant Alternate Gas(SAG) Process

Contents
Laboratory Studies

3/2/2012

SPE

WAG Process

Water Alternating Gas Process : Type of EOR

Microscopic displacement efficiency of Gas

+ Macroscopic sweep efficiency of water Incremental recovery :- 6 % -16 %. Difference in results between experimental investigations and practical implementation on reservoir scale Gases used :- CO , N , HC gases, Mixture of different gases.
3/2/2012 SPE 4

WAG Started

Proposed by Claudle & Dyes in 1958

3/2/2012

Pilot in the North Pembina (Alberta,Can ada)

Majority of fields in former USSR

SPE

Process

3/2/2012

SPE

WAG Process Classification

General Classification Miscible WAG Immiscible

First contact Multi contact

on the basis of Cycle size Single cycle WAG Five cycle WAG Tapered WAG Other forms are hybrid WAG & Simultaneous Water Alternate Gas (SWAG) process.
SPE 7

3/2/2012

Design Parameters

Reservoir heterogeneity Rock & Fluid Interactions Injection Gas Characteristics Injection Pattern Tapering Slug size Cycle Size WAG Ratio Gravity Considerations in WAG
SPE 8

3/2/2012

Screening Criteria

Minimum oil saturation : 25-30% Reservoir :- Homogeneous enough to minimize fingering . As CO corrosive in nature, it must be taken care of. Ratio of water and gas. Moderately light to light oil reservoirs(API gravity > 25). The reservoir should be deep enough to contain the MMP.

3/2/2012

SPE

Associated Problems
Some of the operational problems are:Early Breakthrough in production wells Reduced Injectivity Corrosion Formation of scale, asphaltene,hydrates etc. Different temperatures of injected phase

3/2/2012

SPE

10

3/2/2012

SPE

11

3/2/2012

SPE

12

Surfactant Alternate Gas(SAG)

Immiscible gas injection process . mobility control to improve sweep efficiency. foam can be injected into the reservoir by injecting alternate slugs of surfactant solution and gas. First proposed in 1958 by Bond & Hole brook. Main factor contributing towards incremental disp. efficiency on entrapment of gas due to hysteresis and the effect of 3 phase flow.

3/2/2012

SPE

13

Laboratory Studies
Preparation of core sand pack & evacuation

PV & HCPV determination

Saturation with live oil

Core cutting ,extraction and drying of cores

Different experimental procedures

Collection of reservoir rock & fluid samples

Micro Activity Planning

SPE

Data Interpretation

3/2/2012

14

Experimental Set up
Positive Displacement Pump Buffer Cell Rocking Cell Hot Air Oven Measuring Cylinder Gas Meter

3/2/2012

SPE

15

Experimental study
Intended to suggest the best EOR scheme for an Indian field. Aimed at evaluating the performance of WAG (single cycle and five cycle) and SAG injection in the core as a function of displacement efficiency by injectant to improve oil recovery. Effect of CO2 on crude oil if injected as WAG mode.

3/2/2012

SPE

16

Procedure
Saturation of Core Pack with Live Oil.

Water flooding of the core pack @ 10cc/hr.

Start of WAG injection.

Slug size of WAG was calculated. WAG injection was started @ 5cc/hr (gas) & @ 10 cc/hr (water). Chasing up fluid( water). Cleaning & Drying of core pack.

3/2/2012 SPE 17

Exp. No.1 : Five Cycle WAG

Flood type Cum. Water Injected (cc)
36.9 36.9 41.4 41.4

Cum. Water Produced (cc)

15.0 18.0 21.5 25.5

Cum. Oil Produced (cc)

12.5 13.0 13.0 13.0

Reservoir Oil Volume (cc)

23.00 23.92 23.92 23.92

Connate Water (cc)

14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4

Water Flood G-1 W-1 G-2

W-2
G-3 W-3 G-4 W-4 G-5 W-5 Chase 3/2/2012 Water

45.9
45.9 50.4 50.4 54.9 54.9 59.4 64.5

31.0
33.5 37.0 41.0 45.0 48.0 50.0 53.0
SPE

13.0
13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.0 14.0 14.0

23.92
24.84 24.84 24.84 24.84 25.76 25.76 25.76

14.4
14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
18

WAG(5 Cycle)

80
Displacement Efficiency (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00

Water Flood

5-Cycle WAG

CW

Tertiary Recovery: 7.46%

0.50

1.00
PV Injected

1.50

2.00

3/2/2012

SPE

19

Fluid Saturation during 5 cycle WAG

80 70 60

Sw, Sg, So

50
40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

PV Injected
Sw(%)
3/2/2012

Sg(%)
SPE

So(%)
20

Single Cycle WAG Injection

70

Displacement efficiency (%)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Water Flood

Gas

Water

C W

Tertiary Recovery =7.2%

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

PV Injected
3/2/2012 SPE 21

Exp. No.3 : Five Cycle SAG

Surfactant (sulphodet L-38) solution having its concentration of 2000 ppm is used.
WF G-1 S-1 G-2 S-2 G-3

Flood Type

Cum. Water Injected(cc) 43.60

43.60 48.10 48.10 52.60 52.60

Cum. Water Produced(cc) 20.50

22.00 25.00 27.00 30.00 33.00

Cum. Oil Produced(cc) 12.5

13.0 13.0 13.5 13.5 14.0

Res. Oil Vol.(cc) 23.00

23.92 23.92 24.84 24.84 25.76

Connate Water Vol.(cc) 13.40

13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40

S-3
S-4 S-4 G-5 S-5
3/2/2012

57.10
57.10 61.60 61.60 66.10 86.90

37.00
40.00 44.00 48.00 50.00 63.00
SPE

14.0
15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

25.76
27.60 27.60 27.60 27.60 27.60

13.40
13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40
22

CW

SAG(5 Cycle)
80

Displacement Efficiency(%)

70 60 50

Water Flood

SAG CW

Tertiary Recovery: 12.62 Incremental Recovery: 5.15%

40 30
20 10 0 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

PV Injected(cc)

3/2/2012

SPE

23

Fluid Saturation during SAG (5 Cycle)

80 70 60

Sw, Sg, So

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

PV Injected
Sw
3/2/2012 SPE

Sg

So
24

Exp. No. 4: Five Cycle WAG (CO)

Flood Type WF CO-1 Cum.Water Injected (cc) 29.40 29.40 Cum.Water Produced (cc) 11.50 12.00 Cum.Oil Produced (cc) 11.50 11.50 Res. Oil Volume (cc) 21.16 21.16

Connate Water Vol. (cc) 12.86 12.86

Water-1 CO-2 Water-2 CO-3

Water-3 CO-4 Water-4 CO-5 Water-5
3/2/2012

33.90 33.90 38.40 38.40

42.90 42.90 47.40 47.40 51.90 56.90

12.00 18.50 22.00 26.00

30.00 34.00 37.00 41.00 43.00 46.00
SPE

12.00 13.00 13.50 13.50

14.00 17.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 19.00

22.08 23.92 24.84 24.84

25.76 31.28 31.28 33.12 34.96 34.96

12.86 12.86 12.86 12.86

12.86 12.86 12.86 12.86 12.86 12.86
25

Chase water

WAG (CO) Five Cycle

120 C W

Displacement Efficiency (%)

100

Water Flood

CO WAG

80

60

40

Tertiary Recovery: 37.81% Incremental Recovery: 30.35%

20

0 0.00

0.50

1.00
PV Injected (cc)

1.50

2.00

3/2/2012

SPE

26

Results
100 90 80 70

Recover(WF)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Five Cycle WAG
3/2/2012

Tertiary Recovery Total Recovery

Single Cycle WAG

Five Cycle SAG

Five Cycle CO WAG

SPE 27

Results continued
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Five Cycle WAG
3/2/2012

PV inj upto WF PV inj after WF Total PV inj

Single Cycle WAG

Five Cycle SAG

Five Cycle CO WAG

SPE 28

Conclusions

3/2/2012

Recoveries should be normalized by the amount of gas injected to enable direct comparisons and get reliable results. WAG injection in cyclic mode gives better result. The entrapment of gas due to hysteresis & the effect of the 3 phase flow further contribute to increase recovery by injecting immiscible gas in SAG manner. CO became miscible with the oil at the reservoir pressure of 240 kg/cm and hence the residual oil saturation became very less. CO WAG can prove to be profitable in India if we can have CO generated from different sources.
SPE

29

Acknowledgement
Sincere thanks to Mr.Laxminarayan Mahli, Manager (Reservoir), IRS, ONGC , Ahmedabad

Dr. U.S Prasad, Professor, RGIPT, Rae Bareli

3/2/2012

SPE

30

References

Enhanced Oil Recovery, Fundamentals & Analyses-E.C. Donaldson, G. V. Chilingarian, T.F.Y En A Thesis on Immiscible & Miscible Gas-Oil Displacements In Porous Media by Madhav M.kulkarni . Effect Of Oil & Flue Gas Composition On Oil recovery In The Flue Gas/Light Oil Injection Processes - O.S. Shokoya, Spe, Shell Canada, And S.A. Mehta, Sspe , R.G. Moore ,Spe , And B. Maini, Spe, University Of Calgary, Canada. Promise and Problems of Miscible-Flood Enhanced Oil Recovery, The Need for Surfactant-Based Sweep and Mobility Control by Duane H. Smith Enhanced Oil Recovery Group, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880. Enhanced Oil Recovery & CCS by L.D. Carter Article Alley - Fortune Oil and Gas Willis Texas Offers The Story Enhanced Oil, an article by Jim Knight
SPE 31

3/2/2012

References continued

EOR Economics What Works and What Doesnt by Oswald Clint, Ph.D., ACA , Senior Analyst , +44-207-170-5089 oswald.clint@bernstein.com Enhanced Oil Recovery By Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection by D. H. Tehrani, A. Danesh, M. Sohrabi And G. Henderson, Department Of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, Uk.

Surfactant-Alternate-Gas (SAG) Injection Process as a Novel EOR Technique-- A Laboratory Investigation. Category: Reservoir Modeling and Characterisation by J. P. Srivastava, D. S. Negi, Adarsh K. Jain, and Dr. A. K. Dhawan, IRS, ONGC, Ahmedabad.
Enhanced oil recovery by gas injection : Proposed Screening criteria by F.B Thomas, D.B Bennion, X.L Zhou , a. Erian, D.W Bennion , Hycal energy laboratories Ltd.

3/2/2012

SPE

32

Thank You !!! Any questions

3/2/2012

SPE

33